An Action Research on
'How to Improve Teacher-Students Interaction in
the Nepali Medium English Classroom'
Action Research Report
Researcher
Name: Dev Prasad Pandit
Level: Secondary
Rank: Third
Seat Roll No. :123366
School: Shree Jana Jiwan Secondary School,
Khairahani-2, Chitwan
1. Topic of the Research:
How Can I Improve Teacher-Students Interaction in the Nepali
Medium English Classroom?
2.
Statement of the problem:
I am Dev Prasad Pandit. So far as I am concerned, I
have been involved in teaching English to lower secondary and secondary level
students for a long time at different schools in Chitwan and Kabhrepalanchok.
Recently, I have been teaching at Jana Jiwan Secondary school, Chitwan as a
permanent English teacher of secondary level. I have been facing so many
problems while teaching the students in the classroom. Here I would like to
present one of the problems while teaching English in Nepali medium students.
English
is the most important language in the world. It is an international language.
It is used as second as well as foreign language in the context of Nepal. It is
taught as compulsory subject in the schools of Nepal. Teaching English for
Nepali students is really a challenging job. The students feel difficulty in
learning English. They do not interact in English with the teachers like me that's why I have
prepared this action research on "Teacher-Students Interaction in
the Nepali Medium School English Classroom" which is
totally different from other English medium classes. During my past two years
of teaching, there have been many challenges that I have encountered, from
learning a new school system, materials, and strategies for learning the
structure and regimentation through my own personal experience. The one
thing that I have found to be the most challenging though is finding my own
individual teaching style and structure for making classroom more interactive
in a trial and error process. Most Nepalese students especially from
the government aided schools are usually found to be quiet in the English
classroom, as they have a little experience in classroom interaction with the
teacher. Traditionally Nepalese classrooms are dominated by the lecture method
that does not encourage students to participate in the classroom activities.
The other reason behind the students’ inactivity is the poor English background
and lack of exposure in English in the lower level. So, teaching English
with students’ interaction is quite challenging. This paper, employing
action research, attempts to explore this problem and suggests some possible
ways to create a more interactive classroom.
3.
Objectives of the study:
The
following are the objective of the study.
a)
To improve interaction with their teacher.
b) To help students in speaking.
d) To develop the professional ability of a teacher.
4. Action Research Cycle
A. Planning:
In
order to make the class more interactive and participatory, certain hypotheses
will be made based on some fundamental ways of doing action research. To
clarify the relation of a teacher with students, the teacher will use a
particular term 'rapport' which refers to the relationship of the students with
the teacher and vice-versa. When there is a positive, enjoyable and respectful
relationship between teacher and students, and students themselves, the
environment for the interaction will be set up. These activities will be
applied for eight weeks. If no change will be found then I will replan and redo
the action research cycle. To do so I will do these activities:
Recognizing students with their names: Students want their teacher to know who they
are. They would like their teacher to know their names and characters. There is
no easy way of remembering students’ names yet it is extremely important that
we do so if good rapport is to be established.
Listening to the students: Nothing demotivates the students more than
when the teacher is dismissive or uninterested in what they have to say. Of course, no one can force us to be genuinely
interested absolutely in everything and everyone, but it is part of teacher’s
professional personality that we should be able to convince students that we’re
listening to what they say with every sign of attention.
Respecting the students: Correcting students is always a delicate
event. If we are too critical, we risk at demotivating them. Whichever method
of correction we choose, and whoever we are working with, students need to know
that we are treating them with respect, and not using mockery or sarcasm- or
expressing despair at their efforts. Respect is vital, too, when we deal with
any kinds of problems. Teachers who respect students do their best to see them
in a positive light. They are not negative about their learners or in the way
they deal with them in class.
Being even-handed: What usually happens in the classroom is that
many teachers react well to those who take part, are cheerful and cooperative,
who take responsibility for their own learning, and do what is asked of them
without complaint. Teachers seem less interested in those who are less
forthcoming and prospective. In fact some students may not be quite extrovert
or expressive. It is due to their shyness or their cultural or family backgrounds.
Sometimes students are reluctant to take part overtly because of their language
deficiency. In the light of these facts treating all students equally not only
helps to establish and maintain rapport, but is also a mark of professionalism.
To cope up the students’ inactivity and lack of interaction in the
classroom, the best way the teacher may apply is to dividing the class into
groups. When teachers design group work, they need to introduce the students
the simple group work strategies, such as showing that they are listening to
the speaker by making eye contact and nodding, and by saying such things as
‘What do you think?’ or ‘I like that idea’ in between the discussions.
These skills are simple but important, as they allow all students an opportunity
to effectively participate in group discussion. To enhance the quality of
discourse in group work, the teacher should, sometimes, move way from routine
activities and exercises that filled time but did not encourage the students to
become independent learners. This entailed carefully choosing activities
that can only be accomplished with collaboration and serious conversations,
including comparing and contrasting information, summarizing readings, debating
and argument essays, composing biographies and autobiographies, conducting
interviews, and making presentation.
B. Acting:
According
to the plan above, investigation and the activities are done. The students, as a class, don't respond
voluntarily to the teacher's questions and do not participate in class
discussions. Students never ask the questions to the teacher in while
teaching situations. Thus, the teacher receives no more oral feedback.
According to the teacher most of the students sit looking straight ahead using
minimal facial expressions, gestures and verbal utterances. What I want is for
the students to be more demonstrative and more overtly communicative in their
feedback. I want these behaviors: I want the students to ask questions, make
comments and to respond with nods and shakes of the head, with sounds of
agreement or sounds of understanding. Also, I want them to be both reactive and
proactive. Despite the teacher's several attempts, the students don't seem
responsive and interested in the teaching as well. Few of them try to respond
in Nepali in submissive manner. Very few of them seem attentive but cannot
respond to the teacher's questions; neither they ask any questions to the
teacher about anything nor answer properly. The teacher's class was first
observed in the first week of the second term. In the first 25 minutes, the
class went through reading passage. The students first listened to the
teacher read and explain the text to the students with their books in their
hands, then the students read the text silently themselves. Then the teacher
asked them whether they understood anything or not, but nobody responded. Next
15 minutes, the teacher went through the text explaining the new word
meanings to the students so that they could understand better and respond to
him. He asked the following questions to them based on the text:
T: Any questions? Do you understand everything?
Ss: (no one responds)
T: Okay, how many people were quarrelling?
Ss: (no response)
T: How many people were quarrelling?
Ss: (no response)
T: There were three, three people. Were they
friends or strangers?
Ss: (no response)
The teacher asked a few other questions which also drew no
response or reaction from the students. The students, then, had to write the
answers of some questions about the text in their book according to the
teacher's instruction. Most of the students seemed to have much trouble doing
this, and if there were any questions, they readily seemed to ask few
things the friends sitting next to them but didn't drew any meaningful
result. The following day the class was devoted to the work using the phrases
and vocabulary from the text. The students didn't seem to enjoy this, and most
tried to find the meanings of the words with little effort or no effort at all.
The teacher circulated the room checking on the progress of each student but
didn't see any progress in majority of them, rather their copies were found
empty or they had done little with messy answers. The class atmosphere was
boring, as most of them seemed silent and inactive. The students didn't ask any
questions as they hadn't done any question-answers. Instead of answering the
teacher's questions, they seemed to be whispering and smiling in their own
personal matters. There was no eagerness and enthusiasm in the students. The
teacher asked them to do the activities in the text repeatedly but one or two
of them said that they didn't know the answers. The teacher said, “I want the
students to be more demonstrative and more overtly communicative in their
feedback. I want these behaviors: I want the students to ask me questions, make
comments and to respond with nods and shakes of the head, with sounds of
agreement or sounds of understanding. Also, I want them to be both reactive and
proactive”.
C. Observation:
Test
was done after teaching according to plan. It was found that nearly all the
students started to take part in interaction. After the implementation of conducting
interaction activities, evaluation was conducted to measure the effect of the
plan. Required information was gathered and data was analyzed from the students using observation, test
questions etc.
In the eighth week of the second term, the class
was observed again. A lesson similar to the one in the first week was
presented. In the beginning, the teacher read the text aloud, and then he began
talking about the text explaining the new vocabulary. This went on for about
twenty minutes and included general comprehension check questions such as 'do
you understand?' and 'are you okay?' as well as specific questions about the
text. Regarding general comprehension questions, most of the students nodded in
response and a few answered 'yes' to these questions. And it was believed that
they did, in fact, understand. With the specific questions, however, something
unexpected happened. When the teacher asked a question, he was usually
responded with confused-faced stares, as before. But when he moved closer,
looked specifically at a student, or pair of students, and repeated the
question, the students usually tried to answer. In general, it was noted, the
instructor was paying much more attention to the students, moving closer to
them, and looking at specific students and trying to make a better connection
with them. Instead of asking questions with the feeling that they really
weren't going to be answered anyway, as before, the teacher made a greater
effort to communicate the questions, and acted as if he expected to get
responses. Also, toward the end of the student teacher's talk on the text, two
students, without being encouraged from the teacher, asked questions before the
class. Although the questions were not related directly to the text, the fact
that the questions were asked before the entire class was considered a
breakthrough.
D. Reflection:
In
the brief span between observations some remarkable improvements were seen. The
students interacted with the teacher by nodding and showing gesture in
approval. Some of them answered the teacher's questions, and few, on their own
initiation, even asked questions before the class several times. Many of them
could raise simple questions on the difficult aspects of the text. In the
course of discussion, the class seemed a bit noisier but the teacher showed
amicable temperament to each student with cooperation and encouragement. On the
whole the students became more interactive and initiative in the classroom
activities. They seemed more confident and attentive in the subject matter.
This action research was basically focused on the students’ improvement, but
after having implemented the plan, the improvement on teacher’s performance
became more distinct. The unanticipated result of the teacher becoming more
concerned with the interaction was a pleasant surprise and contributed to the
improvement of him himself. He became softer and friendlier with the students.
In total the challenges of teaching English with interaction in the Nepali
medium English classroom were covered optimistically.
5. Report and dissemination process:
After
following all the procedures the report was prepared. It was printed and
disseminated to school staff, Headmaster and School Management Committee.
6. Improvement, result & learning:
Most of the students became successful in
interaction activities with teachers and vice versa. It was found that nearly
all students actively engaged in speaking during discussion.
7. Conclusion & condition of
re-plan:
The
activities I followed were very effective for creating and improving
interaction power of the students. Different materials as well as multimedia should
be used in teaching reading text. I found that it is not necessary to re-plan.
The recent techniques I used were effective to teach for the students.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Best, J. and
Khan, J. (2000)Research in Education. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
Ghimire, S.
P. (2011). SLCEnglish
Practice Book. Kathmandu:
Taleju Publication.
Harmer, J. (2001).The Practice of
English Language Teaching.
Kumar, R.
(1996). Research Methodology.
Oxford Advanceed Learner’s
Dictionary(7th edition,
2005) London: OUP
Poudel, P. P. (2011). English
Language Teacher Development.
Sharma, U.N.
(2004). ELT Methods and Practice.
Tamang, B.
L. (2014). SLC English
Practice Book. Kathmandu:
Pragyan Publication.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png&description=Action Research (Model 1)){kind=link}
0 Comments